This is a spin off thread from my gear destruction post.

Demolish Foci spell#
LOS
Drain +1 (Damage level of casting)
Target no for Object resistance = OR+ karma invested in focus per standard cost in BBB per type

My reason for this is that though physically destroying a focus is easy, its very hard in astral. This would indicate to me that the invested karma makes the enchantment more resistant to magic. From a game balance view it also prevents more powerful foci, in game effect, being destroyed while higher force foci with cheap karma costs survive.
I feel that most foci would have a low OR making things work and those that dont would of been hard to enchant in the first place.

Your thoughts on the matter would be apprecated.

Regardless of whether or not I think a spell like this should exist:

OR based on Karma invested is going to quickly see the karma portion tip the scales towards all foci being neigh indestructible. Bonding a F1 focus costs around 3 karma, IIRC.

That's 3 OR right there. If the base was 2, you're looking at an OR equivalent to technological devices for the weak end.

Just to check, are we on the same edition? Its for an SR3 game so different foci have variable karma bonding costs..

Also suggest that there is a version of the Demolish spell for each type of foci, so one spell is Demolish Foci [Centering] and another for Demolish Foci [Spirit]

HA! I missed that little icon.

I played SR3 like once. And I wasn't a mage.

Although you may have missed the icon ...




... your general assessment is valid non-theless. In SR3 force ratings of foci (and by implication their karmic binding costs) can get high really fast. All focus types with karmic cost multipliers > 1 would reach "OR"-based target numbers that a caster won't meet that easily or rather "almost never". A force 4 power focus would field an OR of whatever it's base OR is + 20. A force 6 "katana" weapon focus would reach a minimum TN of [3 + 1 (reach of a katana)] * 6 (force) + 6 ( = 30 (32) depending on how high you consider OR for a katana (6 being a handcrafted one, 8 for an industrially produced). Tring to beat such TNs is near invunerability as well



Here are my thoughts (in context of SR3 RAW) ...

The first problem with such a spell is caused by the (sucky) rules of damaging spells against objects that don't have a condition monitor:

What causes destruction? "D"-Level damage (after staging and eventual damage resistance)? What happens if "D"-level can't be reached? Standard objects do not get a damage resistance test when facing such a spell, magical items however would get one. Regardless of a damage resistance test being involved it get's a totally binary thing once the "D"-level is reached in either case and it's totally muddy below that.

To complicate things there's also a rule set that deals with permanent damage against a focus, so you might get some conflicting situations when using the above (unclear) damage resolution against focus when comparing the different situations. Unfortunately in the rule set in question only deals with a situation where the damaging component interacts with the astral form of a focus and technically its physical component as well: The rules about pressing an active focus through astral barriers (the latter being a dual natured phenomenon as well). This particular ruleset establishes that the effect only occurs when both the physical body and the astral form try to press through the barrier (thus projecting astral forms cannot press throuh astral barriers, but could pass when successfully "masked" against the barrier) and the destruction of the focus can only occur if the focus doesn't achieve any successes against the barrier's force and even then only if the barrier also succeeds at an Force Test against the double force of the focus => One could argue that even a spell should not be able to destroy the enchantment of an focus just because it manages to cause "D"-level damage ... and should only succed in cases where the focus gets no success in its spell resistance test and the spell then succeeding in a subsequent Test against doubled focus force.

The final problems stem from things like target acquisition, target validity (based on the target's nature) and the separation of the physical and astral planes.

Let's look at some situations:

1. A not astrally perceiving mage tries to cast your (mana-based) spell against a focus (both active or inactive) that he can clearly see with his natural eyes => This contradicts the basic rule that non-living objects - even if magical in nature - can successfully be targeted only by physical spells => In this situation you either need a Power Bolt or a version of the Wreck [Object] spell .. still subjected to the bad rules as described above
2. An astrally perceiving mage tries to cast your (mana-based) spell against the astral form of an active focus under two sub-situations:
   
   1. The focus is active and its owner is not astrally projecting. In this situation the focus exhibits pretty much all traits of a "dual-natured" entity but not necessarily the traits of a dual natured being. And the attack itself is just aimed at the astral form of the focus => Rulewise it's not clear whether or not the (successful) "attack" against the astral form of the focus with that spell also damages its physical component because unlike the bodies of dual natured beings there's no explicit ruling beyond the aforementioned rule about pressing through barriers that implies that damage on magical items does not automatically transfer between astral form and phyiscal component.
   2. The focus is active and its owner is astrally projecting. This situation suffers from the same problems as described in 2a)
3. An astrally projecting mage tries to cast your (mana-based) spell at either the astral form of foci in situations analogous to 2a and 2b): The successful damage transfer is still uncertain. And since he's prohibited from casting a physical spell on the astral plane it's impossible to default to powerbolt / Wreck [Object] variants.

I find it questionable to make it just a binary thing where the focus is either unharmed or simply destroyed. So personally I'd likely go with a mana-based combat spell that uses the focus' Force as TN, a fixed Base Damage Level of "D" (for purposes of Drain calculation and in order to make the use of the spell at least somewhat taxing) and a variation of the damage resolution that is used when pressing through barriers and can only target only currently active foci:

"Demolish focus"
Type: Mana
Target: Force
Range: LOS
Drain: -1 D (Drain modifiers: Base Damage Level, restricted target "active focus")

This destructive spell can only be cast at active foci of equal or less force. The targeted focus resists the attempt to destroy its enchantment with its own Force. If the focus can't successfully resist the spell it is forcefully deactivated until its owner reactivates it. Should the the focus fail at producing any success during its spell resistance test make a Force Test for the spell against a TN of [focus force]*2. In order to permanently destroy the focus the spell must achieve one success for every 6 points of karma you'd need for normal binding of the focus.

The version you just gave is the Disrupt focus spell per SR4 with an area effect and damaging component.

The rules are muddy on spell damage except for vehicles and drones but why do you think it would get a resistance test to reduce damage when it has effectively no body?

Your right that the TNs on the examples you gave and for general foci- can stack quickly. But if your going to take away a force six power focus or weapon focus off a PC, one your game is higher power than mine and two it better be a damn high TN. It would be easier for the good old Laes dope and drop gig.

Lower end foci, both in game balance and karmic cost are much easier to total.

Example:
Sustaining focus force 6 (6 karma to bond per BBB) OR 6+2 =TN8 to damage
Spirit focus force 3 (9 karma to bond per BBB) OR 9+2=TN11 to damage

I find that the higher bonding cost foci are not available or liked by my PCs BECAUSE of the high bonding cost. Consequently their got at lower forces.

Perhapes I should make the damage lvl Deadly maditory like Shattershield.

Thanks for the detailed break down, SR3's rules can be mistifying

Since I never was that much into SR4 I'm not aware of all existent spells in SR4. However, my spell certainly doesn't contain an area effect



I stated as much when mentioning the problems with items that don't have a condition monitor.



Mainly because of two things:

1. p. 183, SR3:
   Spell resistance Test
   Living targets may always make a Spell Resistance Test against spells, unless the target is willing [..] Non-living, non-magical targets may not make a resistance test.
   A focus clearly doesn't live (=non-living) but it certainly is not "non-magical". While one could start the attempt of arguing semantics there about those two things being an enumeration of independant traits instead of two qualifiers that have to be fulfilled simultaneously so that the target in question doesn't get a Resistance Test, it's quite possible to interpret it in the latter manner and thus meaning that anything magical in nature will get a Spell Resistance Test by implication ... and to a certain extend this is actually needed, because spirits aren't strictly "living targets" either and no one seems to question them having the "right" to Spell Resistance Tests.
2. There's simply precedence for foci getting different at least one form of opposing tests that in nature is some form of Resistance Test: the previously mentioned rules for foci that are being pressed through wards

Which in turn creates some not necessarily "balanced" situations where foci with lower ratings and of certain types get destroyed "regularly" while others are near indestructable. Not something I would aim at, since ...



... for one the relative power within campaigns can shift rather easily and two instantly raising the question as to why that "should be"?



Easier in the sense that this would be perceived as railroading when done by the GM to players and when used by players against NPCs will quickly raise the question about imposing "sufficent" challenge. I deliberately tried to aim for a solution that make the spell a tactical option for both PCs and NPCs, a real but not overly strong possibility of destroying foci (despite still having good chances with a high force spell against foci of lower force ratings).



But shouldn't be removed at a whim either, certainly not in games with supposedly "lower power", because there thes "low end foci" in fact represent really valuable pieces of gear.



Exactly for that reason I chose a fixed Base Damage Level.



You're welcome ...

Fair enough. Demolish is an area effect of wreck in SR4.





That definately seems to clinch a resistance test. This being the case, including karma bonding cost may be a unnecessary complication?




A fair point but in SR3 this would be a unique spell and so mostly unknown, at least thats my intent. There is also dispelling restistance to over come as well.





I am sorry if I came across as undermining your efforts, not my intent. But this should be feared magic and mundane methods are just as fair game. Railroading, when your players realise in character that beings rolling dice control their fate at anothers narrative. Thats a whole different thread.





Yes I agree, good advice. And seriously, thanks for being a sounding board. I need an anvil to hammer out the flaws.

I didn't find your inclusion of binding costs to be an unnecessary complication because two foci of different type but with identical force rating do indeed represent different levels of power increase and monetary value for their respective owners. Take for example a force 2 weapon focus vs. a force 2 sustaining focus. Going by the basic idea of Spell Resistance Test based on their force without accounting for their different karmic value they'd both get just 2 dice and could be destroyed with equal ease (or difficulty - depending on actual implementation) ... despite representing different karmic values (2 vs. 6/8/10 [depending on the weapon's reach) as well as vastly different Nuyen values.

I'm just not sure on how to factor in the different karmic values in way that scales well. In my initial suggestion the difference between these two foci would have been that - once the destruction mechanic is involved - the force 2 sustaining focus would be destroyed with just one success of the spell in the Force Test while the weapon focus would demand 2 ... could still be a bit unbalanced.



Now the problem with the "rarity" of that spell is that once an NPC fields such a spell a player character who is subjected to that spell (and even loses a valuable asset of his own) has the basic "inspiration" to replicate the spell. And unless you want to deny players acces to the spell design rules you're chances are good that your players will indeed try to (re-)design that spell and from there it might go "viral".



What are you referring to there in particular?



I'm always glad when I can help ...

Sorry, the dispelling resistance was the spell defence of a wizzer. Though conjurers and Adepts would be out of luck.

~hmm~
Spell Defense (inlcuding advanced forms from metamagics) certainly can be used to protect foci as one or more of the "subjects" to be defended in that particular manner but there are things to consider there:

1. Prior to having encoutered an opposing magician who makes use of that spell and positively identifying the spell's effect (through loss of at least one focus) your players (and their characters) won't necessarily think of assigning any Spell Defense resources towards their foci => The first encounter of that type will potentially cause a significant loss in terms of karmic investment, Nuyen investment and a potentially important gear resource for the affected magician.
2. While it's certainly interesting to introduce a tactical component (=the spell) that will cause player magician's to stretch their Spell Defense resources not just over their runner team but also over one or more of their (active) foci - thus potentially creating situations where they can't protect everything due to number of protection worthy subjects exceeding to the upper limits of either their Sorcery skill / Spell Defense specialization (for standard Spell Defense, Absorption and Reflecting) or grade of initiation (Shielding) - it's also something that can become rather frustrating for players if they find themselves in a situation where such a danger arises for a longer period of time and / or on regular basis.
3. Once the "genie" has left his bottle and your players show the intend of replicating that spell as part of their own arsenal you - as the GM - will have to deal with the regular application of the spell against your NPCs. Since you wanted that spell not to be something that is rather commonly known this would imply that your NPCs will (and must) be caught "offguard" (i.e. no assigned Spell Defense towards foci) just as your players in their first encounter with the spell or otherwise you'd be metagaming. The next question would be: How will you handle NPC opposition from that point on in terms of relative power levels if this spell becomes the "weapon of choice" due to it's potentially significant effect on foci using NPC?

I was thinking more on the lines of foci counting as part of an inividuals attire, so the person that is covered by dispelling/ other defence dice as normal on the incoming spell. The foci then resists as nomal.

More simplistic mechanic perhapes than raw, but easier to administer.

~hmmm~ That would extend some of issues about what is part of a target and what is not ... not just for purposes of spell effects but now also for the initial target acquisition.

There's precedence that indicates that attire sometimes is being affected as part of a spell's effect (clothes being turned "inivisible" along with the actual target of the Invisibility spell) while in other cases it isn't (the same clothes when someone uses the Shapechange / Transform spells). As far as target acquisition is concerned attire is in some cases considered as part of the target (full body armor not affecting the possibile target acquisition for a combat spell), however there's also precedence that if attrire is targeted individually it really is considered separate from its owner (Levitate spell against e.g. weapon that is carried by its owner or the Fashion spell changing clothes [as target] a person is wearing).

On the physical plane you might want to take some leeway there, but on the astral could get ugly pretty fast: There you have two distinct astral forms with their own auras.


I'm not sure if I'd go with such a change, but I guess you'd have to actually try and play with that rule change in order to determine its actual effect.